Assalamu `alaikum brother.

It's good to hear from you again.

I was against the invasion, and always have. I suppose I may have been more sympathetic towards it if the aim had been to get depose Saddam Hussain solely for him being a cruel dictator, but there was always going to be more to it than that. Even if they did decide to drop the WMD and Al-Qa'ida cards, there are still many testing questions. Why Saddam? Afterall, he wasn't a uniquely evil man, there are plenty of dictators in the world who done things just as bad as him yet the US doesn't attack them (in fact many of them it supports). Why now? I think the strongest case the US had for deposing Saddam on his own merits was 1991, at which point it could very legitimately be argued that he was a threat to the stability of the Middle-east as well as his own people, and should be removed. But in 2003 this just wasn't the case anymore, Iraq's army had been crippled by the Gulf War and subsequent sanctions, and was in no situation to start threatening neighbouring countries even if Saddam intended to; which is doubtable seeing how the Gulf War seemed to teach him a lesson, that if he started causing trouble like that again, the US wuold not hesitate to intervene, and this time would probably go all the way to Baghdad. Even if he was a threat to his own people (I'm not disputing this at all), the fact is he wasn't a threat anymore. He was a nuisance, but not a threat.

I would also argue that the threat Saddam posed to his people, while present, has been exaggerated by the war's supporters. Yes it's perfectly true that Saddam killed tens of thousands of his own people, but this was mainly during 1980s. Although the regime was still repressive and totalitarian, people simply weren't being frequently massacred on a large scale in 2003. The amount of Iraqi civilians killed during the initial invasion (about 7,000-8,000, that's x2.5 the 9/11 dead) was far, far more than the amount of people being killed by Saddam himself, and that's before we even get into the real war itself. A dictator killing his own people is not sufficient justification for his removal, if you claim to be acting in the interests of the Iraqi people then your mandate is lost the moment you start killing multitudes more Iraqis than Saddam himself was.

So in principle I would have liked to see Saddam Hussain removed, but I would not support the US doing so, as I had (and, I believe understandably, still have) no confidence that they were capable of doing so without making a total mess of the situation. The fact is the primary focus was not Saddam's human rights record, but the claims that he had amassed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction which could be used against Western targets, and that he had operational links with Al-Qa'ida, claims that even supporters of the war now accept were completely false, and what's more the evidence for these these claims was totally bogus in the first place. If the people who took your country (hey, and mine) into this war have such a mindset, how can we trust them to have a clue what they're doing in rebuilding a country? It's clear to me that the neocons in the Bush administration (though I don't think Bush himself is the most guilty amongst them) see themselves as the guiding lights of the 'free world' leading America into war against the forces of 'evil', put bluntly they're not in touch with reality. Their mission was to defeat the evil Saddam Hussain and job done, and then all they needed to do was sit back and watch the Iraqi people rebuild their country overnight into a 'free' pro-American democracy in the heart of the Middle-east, winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. Sorry, but anyone who seriously thought (and there are many who did) that's what would happen is either crazy or just shockingly ignorant, and dangerously ignorant when you're running the most powerful country in the world.

That being said, I don't support the US pulling out of Iraq, and I feel that arguments of whether or not they should have invaded to be misplaced in such a discussion, as the reality is it's been done and that can't be changed. Unfortunately for you guys (I mean, the soldiers) who are stuck there now, the US has an obligation to stay there until it has helped fix all the problems which (whether it admits it or not) is responsible for. If they  decide they're going to invade Iraq promising freedom, democracy, prosperity and a new life of its people and then leave the country in a wartorn mess, than they'll never be trusted again, and (not that I support such action in any way at all) you could very well find the war following you back.

The people (apart from the Iraqis, obviously) who've really been screwed over by this are the American soldiers themselves, and honestly I really do feel for you guys sometimes, knowing that you could be killed tomorrow for a war you were against in the first place. That must really get you down.

 "Even if they did decide to drop the WMD and Al-Qa'ida cards, there are still many testing questions. Why Saddam? Afterall, he wasn't a uniquely evil man, there are plenty of dictators in the world who done things just as bad as him yet the US doesn't attack them "

U made great points though.

 

so will you vote for?

But, for the most part in war civilians die.. It comes with a price.

Oh, forgot to add, the people paying the price aren't the ones who asked for the war.

1. This war was supposed to be about saving people's lives from a tyrant.  Maybe I'm just naive, but I can't see the logic of killing people in order to save them

Hamayoun, the truth of the matter is that in war... innocent people die.. U can try your best(which we do contrary to what u may believe) to minimize civilian casualties but it happens.. Study the history of war and u will see the even the most "just" wars have killed civilians..

2. It seems to have been pretty well established that this war was not necessary.  That being said, the 'this is war' argument falls flat on its face.

 

 Hmmm, I disagree.... The REASONS GIVEN for the war made it not necessasry.. If the sole reason given was to remove  Saddam from power then yes, it would have been a just and necessary war.

Now again, maybe I'm being naive because I'm not a soldier, but I see killing - anyone, civilian or soldier - as an absolute last resort."

 

- The war in Iraq is unjustified for the reasons given or any other reason .. Assuming America went to Iraq to free and save the Iraqis, the invasion is still unjustified .. there are plenty of countries that are much more worth of being freed, but unfortunately they don't have oil.

 

- The invasion of Iraq caused nothing but destruction, division and isolation of Iraq. You don't need to visit Iraq to know this fact. I see although you are living in Baghdad, you are not so aware of the situation there. Your argument is so naive and shallow .. Plus you see that Sunnis are the guilty side while Shi'a are the always-victims.